K’riat Shma without Tefilin

The Talmud presents two versions of a criticism of one who recites k’riat shma without wearing tefilin. According to Ula, the act is comparable to giving false testimony about one’s self. According to R. Chiya bar Abba in the name of R. Yochanan, it is like an olah without a minchah, or a zevach without nesachim. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the difference between the two versions. According to Ula, the mitzvah of tefilin is comlpletely fulfilled, but at the same time, an offense of false testimony is created, as the shma mentions wearing tefilin and in practice this is not happening. The second model, though, suggests a deficiency in the mitzvah itself.

The Rambam (Hil. Tefilin 4:26) brings this concept in the context of the obligation of tefilin,noting that although the mitzvah applies theoretically all day, the time of prayer is especially important, and particularly the time of k’riat shma. This is surprising; the impression given by the Talmud is that the issue is one with k’riat shma, not with tefilin.

In addressing this issue, R. Menachem Genack (Gan Shoshanim, 1) cites Rav Soloveitchik, who points to the Rambam’s comments (Hil. Tefilin 5:25) that wearing tefilin impacts on the mindset of the wearer, turning his thoughts away from frivolity and toward holiness. This is also the focus of the statements of the Mechilta, cited by Rabbeinu Yonah (end of the second perek) that one who is involved in Torah study all day accomplishes the purpose of tefilin in that manner (beyond the basic obligation performed during prayer) [see also the essay on this subject in R. Shlomo Wahrman’s Sh’eirit Yosef, V, 2).

Thus, the Rambam understands the issue to be not a requirement of k’riat shma, but of tefilin. That mitzvah is relevant all day long, but finds special focus iduring the time of prayer and in the time of accepting Divine majesty.

This perspective impacts on the question of one who has already recited shma without tefilin and later has the opportunity to put on tefilin, and whether at that point this issue would be satisfied. The Vilna Gaon, in his chiddushim to B’rakhot, asserts that this would depend on the two versions presented in the Talmud. If shma without tefilin is an act of false testimony,
That would seem to remain even if tefilin were worn later; if, however, it is a deficient mitzah performance, it might be possible to enhance the mitzvah afterward. [The issue of later embellishing on a mitzvah that has already been perfomed is one that has been extensively discussed in sefarim; see, for example, Resp. Beit HaLevi, II, 47; the writings of R. Eliezer Silver printed in the sefer Nefesh Chayah; and the Kogaglover Rav’s Siach HaSadeh.]

However, R. Genack continues, if the above understanding is correct, it might be that all versions would allow for tefilin to be incorporated afterward. If k’riat shma is really an ideal fulfillment of tefilin, rather than vice versa, such a scenario would seem acceptable. This would also explain the widespread practice observed on Tisha B’Av, when tefilin are only worn in the afternoon, of reciting shma again at that point (despite the fact, as noted by the Mishnah Berurah, 555:5, that an unnecessary k’riat shma would appear to violate the prohibition of Torah study on that day).

The issue of reciting k’riat shma before tefilin are available is addressed as well by the Resp. Eretz Zvi, (I, 34).While noting a position in poskim that the issue is satisfied if tefilin are worn afterwards on the same day, he himself suggests a more creative approach based on the Mechilta, and not inconsistent with the themes identified above. If Torah study indeed serves the purpose of tefilin, in focusing one’s mind toward holiness, then it might be suggested if, during the recitation of shma, the words of Torah involved are said with intent to fulfill Torah study as well, that would be considered “k’riat shma with tefilin”. Combining the two approaches, he notes that if tefilin are actually worn later in the day, then that serves as the basic requirement; while the additional aspect identified by the mechilta, which shares a function with Torah study, can be accomplished in that manner and thus join with k’riat shma as warranted.